Mastodawn

Arne Brasseur 11h ago

It's clear that AI assisted coding is dividing developers (welcome to the culture wars!). I've seen a few blog posts now that talk about how some people just "love the craft", "delight in making something just right, like knitting", etc, as opposed to people who just "want to make it work". As if that explains the divide.

How about this, some people resent the notion of being a babysitter to a stochastic token machine, hastening their own cognitive decline. Some people resent paying rent to a handful of US companies, all coming directly out of the TESCREAL human extinction cult, to be able to write software. Some people resent the "worse is better" steady decline of software quality over the past two decades, now supercharged. Some people resent that the hegemonic computing ecosystem is entirely shaped by the logic of venture capital. Some people hate that the digital commons is walled off and sold back to us. Oh and I guess some people also don't like the thought of making coding several orders of magnitude more energy intensive during a climate emergency.

But sure, no, it's really because we mourn the loss of our hobby.

Hans Hübner 11h ago

@plexus In the end, software engineering is about creating solutions to problems other people have. The solutions are not a byproduct, but the primary purpose. To the majority of users, the inner workings and the creation process of software is opaque. The qualities that software exposes on the outside are largely independent of its inner workings.

This means that for most people in the software industry, adapting to the new tooling that makes the creation process more efficient is 1/

Javier Pérez 10h ago

@hanshuebner @plexus
"The qualities that software exposes on the outside are largely independent of its inner workings." Sorry, but this can't be further away form truth. Our 70+ years pile of empirical evidence says otherwise. The whole history of software engineering is about how to manage and improve internal quality in order to result in good external quality.

John Maxwell 7h ago

@flooper @hanshuebner @plexus This. The fact that so many people believe otherwise doesn't make it true, and we will suffer the consequences of that stupid ideology.

Hans Hübner 7h ago

@jmax @flooper @plexus I don't believe that "getting stuff done" is an ideology, but rather the reality under which every worker lives in capitalism. We're not getting paid for doing the right or the good thing, we're paid for getting the work done that the man wants us to do.

@hanshuebner @flooper @plexus And if your view of the world begins and ends with making money, as I admit is capitalist dogma, fair enough.

But producing code with LLMs - or using them for anything which needs to be correct - is deception (whether you're deceiving yourself or others) on a massive scale, on a par with crypto, Ponzi schemes, climate denial, etc.

(1/2)

Hans Hübner 6h ago

@jmax @flooper @plexus I'm not sure how you feed yourself and your kids. Maybe you are rich and don't have to worry about that. I'm not all that privileged.

John Maxwell 6h ago

@hanshuebner @flooper @plexus I work for a living and try to avoid dishonesty while doing so.

Since I understand that LLMs are fundamentally and inherently dishonest, that doesn't leave much wiggle room for me.

Hans Hübner 6h ago

@jmax @flooper Machines don't have a concept of honesty, but I think I know what you mean. Thank you for participating in this exchange!

John Maxwell 6h ago

@hanshuebner @flooper Yes. But useful tools are those machines which do have honesty, in a mechanical sense.

John Maxwell 6h ago

@hanshuebner @flooper

Anthropomorphizing them (as many do, but I don't think you are) is a flawed view, but does provide one useful insight.

If one treats an LLM as a person, then the fundamental issue is:

They are a bullshit artist with a huge library. They do not have competence at anything except bullshitting, at which they are superb.

I agree that it's amazing that we can build a mechanical bullshit generator that's good enough to bypass most people's defenses.

Hans Hübner 6h ago

@jmax @flooper I think I'm with you. The difficult part of LLMs for code generation for me is that the bullshit is executable. I can and do dismiss AI "prose", "art" and "music" easily because it is devoid of what makes me want to consume the thing in the first place. Code is primarirly consumed by machines, however, and its primary purpose is the functionality that it provides. That sets it apart from other slop.

John Maxwell 6h ago

@hanshuebner @flooper And the assumption that it's OK to build high rise apartments from paper mache, which is what I'm being asked to swallow, is not OK.

And the fact that we have a sophisticated machine for patching together buildings from recycled concrete slabs patched together with paper mache - carefully concealed where possible, or skillfully painted with stucco where necessary - makes it worse, not better.

Even if they do stand up for a little while before they collapse.

Hans Hübner 6h ago

@jmax @flooper To stay in that analogy: If you, the developer, ask the LLM to create a high-rise out of paper mache, it'll gladly do so. It is your job as the software developer to create the architecture.

As the old adage goes: You can write bad FORTRAN in any language.

John Maxwell 2h ago

@hanshuebner @flooper Your analogy is inaccurate.

A similar, much better one, would be if I asked for a high rise in compliance with building codes and good civil engineering practice, and I got a building crafted from rubble and paper mache, carefully designed to only one standard:
Meet and pass the precise tests, in the precise locations, that will be used to certify the building for occupancy.

Those tests assume competence and skill on the part of the designing engineers.

John Maxwell 2h ago

@hanshuebner @flooper They are not designed to catch engineers who simply don't give a shit.

John Maxwell 2h ago

@hanshuebner @flooper And if you think your job (when using LLMs) is anything other than taking the blame, you're delusional.

I will accept blame for my mistakes. I will not accept blame for the problems introduced by a crappy tool forced on me.